On Sep 23, 5:32*pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
...
Number Eleven - GPEMC! wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
....
On Sep 20, 11:04 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
So, where does the energy that drives observed plate motion against
substantial mantle friction come from, and what evidence do we have
other
than plate motion, for the expenditure of that energy (IE specific to
source: eg. rotational deceleration, orbital deceleration, orbital
decay,
etc.)...?
"My dear man,nobody kept an eye on planetary shape when discussing the
Earth's interior and I most certainly am not going to remind people
who are supposed to be doing their jobs that differential rotation is
an observed generalised rule for rotating compositions in a viscous
state.How the Earth and its 40 km spherical deviation is going to
remain exempt from rotational dynamics and the specifics of that
dynamic is anyone's guess but arguing with people who are fully intent
in ignoring a rotating Earth would not be my idea of enjoyment."
[SNIP]
No-one is ignoring a rotating earth, nor the "oblate spheroid" shape.
You might not be, but Plate Tectonics is. *Both are irrelevant to the
mechanism of Plate Tectonics.
Earlier hypotheses did anticipate the possible role of rotational factors as
documented in the rather dated text:
Bickford, M. E., Bolt, B. A., Broecker, W. A., Brown, G.
E., Bullard, E. C., Ernst, W. G., Hamilton, W., Hartmann, W., Holland, H.
D., Hunt, C. B., Jokela, A., Kaesler, R., Klitgord, K., Le Pichon, X.,
Lewis, J., Londsdale, P., Merrill, W. M., Phinney, R. A., Raup D. M.,
Schopf, J. W., Sharp, R. P., Stevens, P. R., Van Schmus, W. R., 1973,
"Geology Today", CRM Books, California, U.S.A
Now if these ideas did not survive, perhaps it is because the real world
plate motion measurements do not support them...
The fact is that the fractured crust profiles the spherical deviation
of the planet therefore the rotational dynamic and specifically
differential rotation of the viscous interior is already involved in
plate tectonics,it may be just that some are either too dull or too
impressed with their own stationary Earth notions to take notice.Plate
tectonics is an excellent working principle that is being
systematically destroyed by a stationary Earth 'convection cell'
mechanism and an interior composition/viscosity designed around that
unfortunate conception ,for those who feel comfortable with the
reasoning for 'convection cells' then have a ball but others may
enjoy something more productive like the fact that the Earth turns at
1000 miles per hour at the Equator and diminishes to 0 miles per hour
at the geographical poles.
I could talk about how the motion of fractured crust across the
spherical deviation as a means to facilitate subduction or as a means
to explain intraplate events among other things but perhaps when I
have to descend to the level of convection cell adherents,it becomes a
waste of information and effort,it is also draining.When an
institution or group of individuals decide to take on board a better
approach to evolutionary geology then perhaps down the line a
discussion based on chemicals can emerge but without a rotational
influence,it may as well be a flat Earth mechanism for crustal motion.
Rotational dynamics is such a vibrant topic that can be appreciated by
just about anyone with a taste for adventurous thinking where it is so
natural to make the leap from rotational dynamics to crustal dynamics
that is actually harder to remain with stationary Earth notions.I
think I have said enough for genuine people to get the point at this
stage and can drop it for a while.
If you
don't present your case, and you don't present solid verifiable
substantiative evidence, how can you expect anyone to adopt your
conclusion?
Convection by an internal heat source confirmed in both parts by
geological
activity, is further confirmed by differential motion of plates and
confluent motion of mantle material relative to plate motion as
confirmed by
Beryllium 10 isotope studies (Wilson, 1993). IE convergences and
divergences
of surface features of a system such as plates are most effectively
explained by convection, especially when material is known to flow under
the
plates confluently.
You're behind the times in the most recent shift in the goalposts of
Plate Tectonics. *Plate Tectonics is now considered to be driven by
subduction, i.e., not convection driven by motion from the inside, but
from the motion of the outside of the lithospheric shell.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...ils.html#uyeda
This has nothing to do with the implications of cosmogenic isotope evidence.
If subduction didn't happen, there would be no Beryllium 10 in lavas;
period. If subduction did not happen, there would be lots of billion year
old oceanic crust floating around on the mantle. There isn't and it had to
go somewhere because we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.
These facts stand irrespective of what is argued to drive the system.
Rotational artefacts such as the Coriolus effect manifest themselves in
rotational subsystems whose axes of rotation are roughly perpendicular
to
the earth's surface, such as cyclones and anti-cyclones. However,
vertical
atmospheric motion is mostly heat driven; by convection.
The rupture of the crust and the emplacement of the Pacific is
entirely described by the swivelling open of the continents in the
Pacific region ('coriolis' effect in the lithosphere)
http://users.indigo.net.au/don
The big problem for Plate Tectonics is that the same structures that
describe this also describe the growth of the planet.
This is not substantiated by real world measurement of plate motion.
The fact that rotation of plates about axes roughly perpendicular to the
earth's surface is far smaller, if at all measurable, than the
differential
motion of the plates as characterised by convergence and divergence; can
be
explained by the presence of both greater friction (due to higher
viscosity)
and greater heat.
Exactly. *Friction and heat and what Plate Tectonics is all about. The
shape of the planet and the fact that it is spinning is irrelevant.
It has been said here that compared to the power of convection the
heat generated by the Earth's rotation (/differential rotation) *is
point twenty nine zeros of insignificance.
No heat is generated by rotation - this is a matter of angular momentum -
which is conserved unless an outside force acts upon it. Some heat may be
generated by gravitational fluctuations. Nuclear material in the earth is
the speculated heat source and this is confirmed by the phenomena of natural
meltdowns such as those evidenced by some west African uranium deposits.
However, with respect to plate motion, Coriolus rotations if observable,
still can neither explain the measurable system of convergent and
divergent
plate boundaries that are observed nor the confluent motion of mantle
material relative to plate motion as confirmed by Beryllium 10 isotope
studies (Wilson, 1993). The Coriolus effect may on the other hand,
contribute to the motion and alteration of convection cells themselves,
but
I suspect the available evidence may be a little thin for this level of
conjectural detail to be considered scientific.
The entire global structure of the planet describes rotational (and
growth) dynamics. (Ignored in plate Tectonics.)
There is no evidence for topological growth independent of the incorrect
assertion that subduction does not occur. Subduction does occur as dating
and cosmogenic isotope studies confirm.
This is an invitation to shower us all with relevant references from the
peer-reviewed literature showing just how much data really is available
to
support your conclusions. If you've done it all before, it's only a
CTRL+C,
CTRL+V sequence away - so much easier than typing it all out from
scratch.
Forget Peer Review. *After half a century up a backwater based on
convenient assumptions and dodgy arithmetic it needs dragging into the
present by the short and curlies. *People can begin with the simple
logic, which says that if subduction operates, then Plate Tectonics
cannot happen:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html
The only reason your computer works is because peer-review rejected all the
capacitive-gravity generation nonsense (which incidently has absolutely no
working prototypes in spite of all the U.S. Patents) in favour of
semi-conductor theory, which actually does something useful if applied.
Plate tectonics can be used to predict with a high degree of accuracy, the
range of bulk composition that a given magma will fall into based on the
location of the eruption, and seismic activity for a given location - real
theories have practical applications that work. Expanding earth theory fails
to predict increased seismic and geological activity measured at convergent
margins, nor does expanding earth theory accurately predict oceanic crust
age at convergent margins - something not only predicted accurately by plate
tectonics, but plate tectonics is confirmed by geographic distribution of
fossil assemblages through time as well as being confirmed by the appearance
of that niggly cosmogenic isotope (Beryllium 10) in lavas that without
subduction would have no source of beryllium 10 whatsoever.
Delete the link back to the *nonsense/ page for an index to the
rubbish of Plate Tectonics.
(You're falling in the trap of thinking that a billion Chinese can't
be wong.)
No, I'm following a process that has worked in the past with no indication
of any reason why it should not continue to work in the future while making
my own mind up about what the data means. People sometimes make mistakes,
but there is a thriving demand to be the one who makes the correction. If
you check the science citation index for Royer et. al. (2004), you will no
doubt discover that many more people than Shaviv and Vizier (2004) had
something to say. Lots of people have something to say about Prof. Mann's
hockey stick, and Prof. Wang gets crucified for not checking the evidence
when he claims that the Heat Island Effect is accounted for in the
instrumental temperature graph used by most climate change catastrophists..
__________________________________________________ __________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the to email.
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Softwahttp://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!